And please do tell me why.
2007-12-24 01:02:02 · 8 answers · asked by Oriental Sous-chef 3 in Cars & Transportation ➔ Aircraft
Cybeq: I see what you mean. Lets say if they were more used in situations like Iraq and/or Afghanistan.
2007-12-24 01:11:27 · update #1
I find it hard to decide myself still. I like the Harrier coz the things it can do, and i do believe its more manouvreable. I do believe the Hog is the most horrible looking aircraft one has made but as well it has its very positive things too.
2007-12-25 08:04:49 · update #2
I tend to agree with Engineer and Earanger.
2007-12-25 08:05:47 · update #3
Harrier of course, cant better the best
2007-12-24 01:05:17 · answer #1 · answered by thelma_layton 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
While both are designed primarily for ground attack/support, they have different missions.
The A-10 Thunderbolt II is designed to attack tanks and other armored vehicles in support of the Army.
The AV-8B Harrier is designed to support Marines on the ground. It doesn't have the same weaponry as the A-10 (ie. the 30mm Gatling), taking on troops and lighter defended vehicles and fortifications.
Harriers deploy on ships to support Marines when they hit the beach. A-10s can't deploy on ships. It was due to their shipborne status that the British put a hurt on the Argentines during the Falkland Islands War in the early 1980s.
But - I have been around both Harriers and A-10s, and the one factor tipping me to favor the A-10 is the noise factor. The Harrier is a horrible plane when it comes to noise, emitting a high pitched screeching. The A-10 has a lower pitched , actually quieter, roar.
2007-12-24 01:24:38 · answer #2 · answered by earanger 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
The A-10 is probably the ultimate ground support aircraft. It is highly specialized and is unbeatable in that role. It carries a ridiculous amount of ordnance, mounts the most powerful forward firing armament ever fitted to an aircraft, and is exceedingly robust.
The Harrier however is unique. But really it's not the best at anything besides short take off and landing. It is a decent fighter and a decent attack aircraft. But it is complicated and relatively slow for a modern fighter.
The A-10 is my choice, because it is a specialist and ideally suited to its role. Unfortunately in todays money driven military specialists are frowned upon, they cost more because you need two planes instead of one.
2007-12-24 13:37:59 · answer #3 · answered by rohak1212 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Let's set the record straight the Harrier is not slow for a Fighter in the sense that you are not going to dog fight at supersonic speeds it is capable of transsonic speeds it is faster than an FA-18 because it has to use afterburners to maintain its high speed rate because of the nozzle position and usage it is THE MOST manuverable below 30,000ft in the US arsenal. The A-10 does have the guns and titanium tank in which the pilot sits in but it also goes alot closer to the ground action. The main role of the Harrier is close air support but that is from several thousand feet dropping LGB's (laser guided bombs) and other weapons from a realtively safe distance. I am partial to thee Harrier because I worked on them for 10 years. Semper Fi and good luck in your quest for the best
2007-12-27 13:11:11 · answer #4 · answered by jeremy_mcdonald2003 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A-10 Thunderbolt II
Because
1) 30 mm Gatling Gun that can chew through tanks and go clean through the engine of a jet fighter at over 2000 yds.
2) "Special" classified ammo for the '30... take your worst nightmare; multiply by ~4... then I get up to 4 Sidewinder Air to Air missiles and choice of Harpoon, Maverick, Hellfire ground attack missiles..... up to TWICE the payload of a B-17....
3) Titanium Armor Bucket for the Pilot on ALL sides, not just in back...
4) Super Silent.. At 500 ft the Thunderbolt can go over with the engines cut back and you can't hear it til it's only 350 yds away !!! Ouch !!
5) Harrier has a 50 gal super pure water tank. It needs this water supply to hover. When the water's gone.... No more hover....oops... Arrrgh !!!
2007-12-24 10:36:46 · answer #5 · answered by E 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Warthog! A-10 all the way.
Carries a lot more, not as vulnerable to ground fire, better at taking out armor (those big nasty things the ground pounders hate), far more maneuverable (Harriers are a sitting duck if they use their nozzles to try to "viff."
If I were in a foxhole, I'd rather have one A-10 overhead, than a flight of Harriers.
2007-12-24 09:25:34 · answer #6 · answered by gromit801 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I am in favour of the Harrier over the Thunderbolt.
I think it's difficult to manoeuvre. (I may be wrong)
2007-12-24 05:28:46 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It depends on the application and the mission. You should have specified parameters under which to compare both aircraft.
2007-12-24 01:05:51 · answer #8 · answered by Cybeq 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋